Skip to main content

ANSI C12.22, IEEE 1703, and MC12.22 Transport Over IP
draft-c1222-transport-over-ip-08

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
08 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Sean Turner
2012-08-22
08 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Stewart Bryant
2012-08-22
08 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk
2012-08-22
08 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu
2012-08-22
08 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Adrian Farrel
2012-08-22
08 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert
2012-08-22
08 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley
2011-01-10
08 (System) New version available: draft-c1222-transport-over-ip-08.txt
2010-10-26
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2010-10-26
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2010-10-26
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2010-10-25
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2010-10-25
08 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2010-10-25
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2010-10-25
08 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2010-10-25
08 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2010-10-25
08 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2010-10-25
08 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza
2010-10-08
08 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stewart Bryant has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Stewart Bryant
2010-09-30
08 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Sean Turner
2010-09-29
07 (System) New version available: draft-c1222-transport-over-ip-07.txt
2010-09-29
08 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Tim Polk
2010-08-20
06 (System) New version available: draft-c1222-transport-over-ip-06.txt
2010-08-17
08 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Lars Eggert
2010-08-16
08 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Dan Romascanu
2010-08-08
08 Russ Housley [Ballot comment]
Please consider the comment provided in the Gen-ART Review by
  Spencer Dawkins on 2010-06-15:

    http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/
    draft-c1222-transport-over-ip-03-dawkins.txt
2010-08-08
08 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
Section 3.3 says:
  >
  > If a C12.22 IP Node is configured to accept IP broadcast and
  > multicast messages, …
[Ballot discuss]
Section 3.3 says:
  >
  > If a C12.22 IP Node is configured to accept IP broadcast and
  > multicast messages, it SHALL join the "All C1222 Nodes" multicast
  > group (see Section 2.6. IP Multicast), and SHALL use the default port
  > 1153.  In addition it SHALL accept IP Network directed or limited
  > (local scope) broadcast messages sent to port 1153.  Note that
  > successful communication using network directed broadcast requires
  > configuration of network routers, which by default are not supposed
  > to forward directed broadcasts as per RFC 2644 [19].
  >
  I interpret "not supposed to" as "SHOULD NOT". However, RFC 2644 says
  the following about routers:

      Directed Broadcast - a broadcast directed to the specified network
      prefix.  It MUST NOT be used as a source address.  A router MAY
      originate Network Directed Broadcast packets.  A router MAY have a
      configuration option to allow it to receive directed broadcast
      packets, however this option MUST be disabled by default, and thus
      the router MUST NOT receive Network Directed Broadcast packets
      unless specifically configured by the end user.

  and:

      A router MAY have an option to enable receiving network-prefix-
      directed broadcasts on an interface and MAY have an option to
      enable forwarding network-prefix-directed broadcasts.  These
      options MUST default to blocking receipt and blocking forwarding
      of network-prefix-directed broadcasts.

  Given the apparent contradiction, it seems that more needs to be
  said about the implications for routers that serve the C12.22 IP
  Node.

  Section 6.2 (Informative References) says:
  >
  > [Will be added as appropriate]
  >
  Please fill them in or remove this section.
2010-08-08
08 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley
2010-08-07
05 (System) New version available: draft-c1222-transport-over-ip-05.txt
2010-07-28
08 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
I realize this is a  late discuss, but I understand that the document shepherd does not consider this document ready for IESG evaluation.  …
[Ballot discuss]
I realize this is a  late discuss, but I understand that the document shepherd does not consider this document ready for IESG evaluation.  I am holding this discuss until the shepherd is happy as a process issue.
2010-07-28
08 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2010-07-13
08 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Adrian Farrel
2010-07-09
08 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2010-07-09
04 (System) New version available: draft-c1222-transport-over-ip-04.txt
2010-07-02
08 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-07-01
2010-07-01
08 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2010-07-01
08 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
Section 3.4.1., paragraph 1:
>    Service, of ANSI C12.22, this specification RECOMMENDEDS that the

  Rephrase RECOMMENDEDS with a valid RFC2119 term …
[Ballot comment]
Section 3.4.1., paragraph 1:
>    Service, of ANSI C12.22, this specification RECOMMENDEDS that the

  Rephrase RECOMMENDEDS with a valid RFC2119 term ("is RECOMMENDED").
2010-07-01
08 Lars Eggert
[Ballot discuss]
[I'm moving one part of my comment to a discuss - I had somehow convinced
myself that this document was an Independent Submission, …
[Ballot discuss]
[I'm moving one part of my comment to a discuss - I had somehow convinced
myself that this document was an Independent Submission, which it is not.]

Section 3.4.2., paragraph 1:
>    When sending a large C12.22 Message via UDP, whereby the ACSE PDU
>    size exceeds the UDP datagram maximum data length (65527 bytes), the
>    initiating C12.22 IP Node SHALL segment the ACSE PDU in accordance
>    with ANSI C12.22 Datagram Segmentation and Reassembly algorithm, such
>    that each APDU segment fits within the UDP data field.

  You really want to use fragmentation already when the payload exceeds
  the path MTU, and not only when it is larger than the maximum possible
  UDP message size. See RFC5405 Section 3.2.

  More generally, however, this document is completely silent about how
  C12.22 communication is congestion-controlled when transmitted over
  UDP, what sort of retransmission schemes are used, etc. I don't think
  we can publish an IETF document without this. (See RFC2914 and RFC5405.)
  Do some C12.22 standards specify this behavior?
2010-07-01
08 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to Discuss from No Objection by Lars Eggert
2010-07-01
08 Robert Sparks [Ballot comment]
Support Stewart's discuss - the document would benefit greatly from more exposition.
2010-07-01
08 Robert Sparks [Ballot comment]
Support Stuarts discuss - the document would benefit greatly from more exposition.
2010-07-01
08 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2010-07-01
08 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
I think this is an important specification and in relatively OK
shape technically, and we should move it forward. A couple of comments, …
[Ballot comment]
I think this is an important specification and in relatively OK
shape technically, and we should move it forward. A couple of comments,
however:

First, I agree with Lars Eggert's discuss on 63K UDP packets and
fragmentation.

Second, I think the document is quite hard to read. Its partially that
I don't have C12.12 background and partially because of the writing
style and partially because much of the big picture is missing.
2010-07-01
08 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2010-07-01
08 Ralph Droms State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ralph Droms
2010-07-01
08 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot discuss]
The document currently has an Informative References section with null content but marked as [Will be added as appropriate]. I would like the …
[Ballot discuss]
The document currently has an Informative References section with null content but marked as [Will be added as appropriate]. I would like the appropriate documents to be added to this section or the section taken out before approving this document.
2010-07-01
08 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2010-07-01
08 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2010-06-30
08 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot discuss]
Can IANA please confirm that the appropriate expert reviews have been made for the codepoint allocations:
- IPv6 multicast address allocation
- IPv4 …
[Ballot discuss]
Can IANA please confirm that the appropriate expert reviews have been made for the codepoint allocations:
- IPv6 multicast address allocation
- IPv4 multicast address (or is this asking for IESG approval?)
2010-06-30
08 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2010-06-30
08 Sean Turner
[Ballot discuss]
AES-128/EAX is the algorithm, key size, and mode used in the ANSI C12.22 security mechanism.  I do not have access to this document …
[Ballot discuss]
AES-128/EAX is the algorithm, key size, and mode used in the ANSI C12.22 security mechanism.  I do not have access to this document nor did the secdir reviewer.  Therefore, I have many questions about this mechanism:

1) As far as I can tell, this mode has not been specified before in an RFC so I've got to ask if the CFRG has ever considered it?

2) Why are we using a new mode as opposed to an existing/approved mode?

3) Is only one key size/mode supported?  Normally, I'd like to see one MUST and one SHOULD in case the MUST is shown to be insecure.

4) With the layering of C12.22 on top of IP networks may warrant a discussion about potential methods  to enhance C12.22 security? For example, could privacy be enhanced beyond what C12.22 offers through use of a transport network's confidentiality services?
2010-06-30
08 Russ Housley [Ballot comment]
Please consider the comment provided in the Gen-ART Review by
  Spencer Dawkins on 2010-06-15:

    http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/
    draft-c1222-transport-over-ip-03-dawkins.txt
2010-06-30
08 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
Section 3.3 says:
  >
  > If a C12.22 IP Node is configured to accept IP broadcast and
  > multicast messages, …
[Ballot discuss]
Section 3.3 says:
  >
  > If a C12.22 IP Node is configured to accept IP broadcast and
  > multicast messages, it SHALL join the "All C1222 Nodes" multicast
  > group (see Section 2.6. IP Multicast), and SHALL use the default port
  > 1153.  In addition it SHALL accept IP Network directed or limited
  > (local scope) broadcast messages sent to port 1153.  Note that
  > successful communication using network directed broadcast requires
  > configuration of network routers, which by default are not supposed
  > to forward directed broadcasts as per RFC 2644 [19].
  >
  I interpret "not supposed to" as "SHOULD NOT". However, RFC 2644 says
  the following about routers:

      Directed Broadcast - a broadcast directed to the specified network
      prefix.  It MUST NOT be used as a source address.  A router MAY
      originate Network Directed Broadcast packets.  A router MAY have a
      configuration option to allow it to receive directed broadcast
      packets, however this option MUST be disabled by default, and thus
      the router MUST NOT receive Network Directed Broadcast packets
      unless specifically configured by the end user.

  and:

      A router MAY have an option to enable receiving network-prefix-
      directed broadcasts on an interface and MAY have an option to
      enable forwarding network-prefix-directed broadcasts.  These
      options MUST default to blocking receipt and blocking forwarding
      of network-prefix-directed broadcasts.

  Given the apparent contradiction, it seems that more needs to be
  said about the implications for routers that serve the C12.22 IP
  Node.

  Section 6.2 (Informative References) says:
  >
  > [Will be added as appropriate]
  >
  Please fill them in or remove this section.
2010-06-30
08 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to Discuss from No Objection by Russ Housley
2010-06-30
08 Stewart Bryant
[Ballot discuss]
I find this specification confusing because there is insufficient explanation of how the C1222 network interfaces to the IP network.

I find the …
[Ballot discuss]
I find this specification confusing because there is insufficient explanation of how the C1222 network interfaces to the IP network.

I find the TTL behavior described in Section 2.6 particularly confusing. Is there a TTL in the C1222 network, or only in the IP network? Does the TTL monotonically decrease? The TTL seems to need to be set to critical value, and it's not clear how this is know, or whether in needs to be changed during the operational lifetime of the network.
2010-06-30
08 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Stewart Bryant
2010-06-30
08 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
Section 3.4.1., paragraph 1:
>    Service, of ANSI C12.22, this specification RECOMMENDEDS that the

  Rephrase RECOMMENDEDS with a valid RFC2119 term …
[Ballot comment]
Section 3.4.1., paragraph 1:
>    Service, of ANSI C12.22, this specification RECOMMENDEDS that the

  Rephrase RECOMMENDEDS with a valid RFC2119 term ("is RECOMMENDED").


Section 3.4.2., paragraph 1:
>    When sending a large C12.22 Message via UDP, whereby the ACSE PDU
>    size exceeds the UDP datagram maximum data length (65527 bytes), the
>    initiating C12.22 IP Node SHALL segment the ACSE PDU in accordance
>    with ANSI C12.22 Datagram Segmentation and Reassembly algorithm, such
>    that each APDU segment fits within the UDP data field.

  You really want to use fragmentation already when the payload exceeds
  the path MTU, and not only when it is larger than the maximum possible
  UDP message size. See RFC5405 Section 3.2.
2010-06-30
08 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2010-06-30
08 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Gonzalo Camarillo
2010-06-29
08 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Magnus Nystrom.
2010-06-29
08 Sean Turner
[Ballot discuss]
AES-128/EAX is the algorithm, key size, and mode used in the ANSI C12.22 security mechanism.  I do not have access to this document …
[Ballot discuss]
AES-128/EAX is the algorithm, key size, and mode used in the ANSI C12.22 security mechanism.  I do not have access to this document nor did the secdir reviewer.  Therefore, I have many questions about this mechanism:

1) As far as I can tell, this mode has not been specified before in an RFC so I've got to ask if the CFRG has ever considered it?

2) Why are we using a new mode as opposed to an existing/approved mode?

3) Is only one key size/mode supported?  Normally, I'd like to see one MUST and one SHOULD in case the MUST is shown to be insecure.

4) With the layering of C12.22 on top of IP networks may warrant a discussion about potential methods  to enhance C12.22 security? For example, could privacy be enhanced beyond what C12.22 offers through use of a transport network's confidentiality services?
2010-06-29
08 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Sean Turner
2010-06-28
08 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Peter Saint-Andre
2010-06-25
08 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2010-06-14
08 Amanda Baber
IANA comments:

ACTION 1:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
changes in the "PORT NUMBERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers

OLD:

Keyword …
IANA comments:

ACTION 1:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
changes in the "PORT NUMBERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers

OLD:

Keyword Decimal Description References
------- ------- ----------- ----------
c1222-acse 1153/tcp ANSI C12.22 Port
c1222-acse 1153/udp ANSI C12.22 Port

NEW:

Keyword Decimal Description References
------- ------- ----------- ----------
c1222-acse 1153/tcp ANSI C12.22 Port [RFC-c1222-transport-over-ip-03]
c1222-acse 1153/udp ANSI C12.22 Port [RFC-c1222-transport-over-ip-03]


ACTION 2:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
changes in the "IPv4 Multicast Address Space Registry" at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses/multicast-addresses.xhtml
sub-registry "AD-HOC Block I (224.0.2.0 - 224.0.255.255)"

OLD:

Address(s) | Description | Reference | Date Registered | Last Reviewed
224.0.2.4 | All C1222 Nodes | [draft-c1222-transport-over-ip] | 2009-08-28 |

NEW:
Address(s) | Description | Reference | Date Registered | Last Reviewed
224.0.2.4 | All C1222 Nodes | [RFC-c1222-transport-over-ip-03] |
2009-08-28 |


ACTION 3:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
changes in the "IPv6 Multicast Address Space Registry" located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-multicast-addresses/ipv6-multicast-addresses.xhtml
sub-registry "Variable Scope Multicast Addresses"

OLD:
Address(s) | Description | Reference | Date Registered | Last Reviewed
FF0X:0:0:0:0:0:0:204 | All C1222 Nodes | [draft-c1222-transport-over-ip]
| 2009-08-28 |

NEW:
Address(s) | Description | Reference | Date Registered | Last Reviewed
FF0X:0:0:0:0:0:0:204 | All C1222 Nodes |
[RFC-c1222-transport-over-ip-03] | 2009-08-28 |
2010-06-09
08 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nystrom
2010-06-09
08 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nystrom
2010-06-03
08 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ralph Droms
2010-06-03
08 Ralph Droms Ballot has been issued by Ralph Droms
2010-06-03
08 Ralph Droms Created "Approve" ballot
2010-06-03
08 Ralph Droms Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-07-01 by Ralph Droms
2010-06-03
08 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2010-06-03
08 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2010-06-03
08 Ralph Droms Status date has been changed to 2010-06-03 from
2010-06-03
08 Ralph Droms [Note]: 'Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> is the Document Shepherd.' added by Ralph Droms
2010-06-03
08 Ralph Droms Last Call was requested by Ralph Droms
2010-06-03
08 Ralph Droms State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Ralph Droms
2010-06-03
08 Ralph Droms Last Call was requested by Ralph Droms
2010-06-03
08 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2010-06-03
08 (System) Last call text was added
2010-06-03
08 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2010-06-03
08 Ralph Droms State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ralph Droms
2010-06-03
08 Ralph Droms Note field has been cleared by Ralph Droms
2010-05-15
03 (System) New version available: draft-c1222-transport-over-ip-03.txt
2010-05-05
08 Russ Housley Draft Added by Russ Housley in state Publication Requested
2009-11-17
02 (System) New version available: draft-c1222-transport-over-ip-02.txt
2009-09-16
01 (System) New version available: draft-c1222-transport-over-ip-01.txt
2009-08-21
00 (System) New version available: draft-c1222-transport-over-ip-00.txt